segregation, eh? The collateral damage caused to men by discriminating against all of them at once in order to protect women from the ones who are socially abusive is unnecessary. Instead of "women only space" make a "no being oppressive through actions" space. Yeah it would be harder to enforce, much like how people are harder to categorize when we stop dehumanizing them.

I still vote for not dehumanizing.

That is so helpful of you to say. You're right. Instead of creating safe spaces, we should just stop abuse. It's so easy, why hasn't anyone thought of it before?

Now can you - as I assume, a man - exposing to me the damage I have suffered - as a man - due to women only spaces? I have been aware of women only spaces for a long time and I have never, ever felt remotely damaged, left out or suffering.

If a woman's only space makes you feel discriminated against, it's because you're a narcissist.

I have a feeling your questions were rhetorical, but I have answers. What about circumstances where people who dont identify as men are disallowed from entering the women's only space, because the women in said space choose to misrecognise the person as a man, and prefer their misrecognition to the excluded person's own gender identity?
To put it more simply, who gets to define "woman"? Ciswomen?_________________Don`t give up.

So there isn't actually any problem with the existence of women only spaces at all, and cisgender men aren't hurt by them, the problem is that among women there is a lack of understanding for transpeople and they are sometimes excluded from spaces they need because of this lack of understanding? Great answer.

So why did your original post talk about collateral damage to men?_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

Can I ask what your criteria is to determine whether to engage with what I said or to just swear at me? Was the issue me not making my point with a respectful enough tone, or is what I said, regardless of how it is presented, so obviously wrong that any and all name calling and written abuse are justified?

I am not committed to disallowing women's only spaces. I think the value they bring in terms of both providing actual safety for women and providing a place that *feels* safe is huge. I dont think mentioning possible downsides and suggesting we should discuss the downsides while acknowledging that we need to ensure women both are and feel safe is the kind of perspective that warrants a playground bully level response. If its my fault for not making my postition clear, fine, im sorry. But I really want to talk about this stuff with you guys; im learning here, and I dont know who swearing at me benefits.

Because you said something so fucking unbelievable and worthy of scorn. Maybe it was "misphrased," or you didn't say what you actually meant, but I had no way to see that through the fucking unbelievable words you actually said. If you want actual engagement from me, don't you fucking EVER imply that the physical safety of abused women is a secondary concern worth sacrificing. Lets find ways to help other people who need it without compromising other very real needs, shall we?

So there isn't actually any problem with the existence of women only spaces at all, and cisgender men aren't hurt by them, the problem is that among women there is a lack of understanding for transpeople and they are sometimes excluded from spaces they need because of this lack of understanding? Great answer.

So why did your original post talk about collateral damage to men?

You're right, my mistake. I dont agree with my original post anymore. I guess perhaps its more the idea that the creation of spaces which are gender exclusive can reinforce the gender binary. Im not saying they dont have value, this just seems to be a side effect, one I am interested in combating while keeping women safe. I have a vested interest in opposing gender roles, to the extent that they are applied to me against my will._________________Don`t give up.

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

Can I ask what your criteria is to determine whether to engage with what I said or to just swear at me? Was the issue me not making my point with a respectful enough tone, or is what I said, regardless of how it is presented, so obviously wrong that any and all name calling and written abuse are justified?

I am not committed to disallowing women's only spaces. I think the value they bring in terms of both providing actual safety for women and providing a place that *feels* safe is huge. I dont think mentioning possible downsides and suggesting we should discuss the downsides while acknowledging that we need to ensure women both are and feel safe is the kind of perspective that warrants a playground bully level response. If its my fault for not making my postition clear, fine, im sorry. But I really want to talk about this stuff with you guys; im learning here, and I dont know who swearing at me benefits.

Because you said something so fucking unbelievable and worthy of scorn. Maybe it was "misphrased," or you didn't say what you actually meant, but I had no way to see that through the fucking unbelievable words you actually said. If you want actual engagement from me, don't you fucking EVER imply that the physical safety of abused women is a secondary concern worth sacrificing. Lets find ways to help other people who need it without compromising other very real needs, shall we?

See, your choice of violent language just comes off to me as righteous anger for its own sake. Do you feel pleasure when you find a target your ethics allows you to hate? Sometimes people say things, realize they are wrong, apologise, and move on. Thankfully I understand that outrage is something people are entitled to and I choose not to take it personally, but if you are committed to doing what you can to create the kind of society you think you deserve, I personally believe its important to mentally recognize a hedonistic, self-reightous anger and an honest and natural angry reaction to injustice. The former doesnt help, and should be prevented. The latter is understandable, and has value._________________Don`t give up.

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

Can I ask what your criteria is to determine whether to engage with what I said or to just swear at me? Was the issue me not making my point with a respectful enough tone, or is what I said, regardless of how it is presented, so obviously wrong that any and all name calling and written abuse are justified?

I am not committed to disallowing women's only spaces. I think the value they bring in terms of both providing actual safety for women and providing a place that *feels* safe is huge. I dont think mentioning possible downsides and suggesting we should discuss the downsides while acknowledging that we need to ensure women both are and feel safe is the kind of perspective that warrants a playground bully level response. If its my fault for not making my postition clear, fine, im sorry. But I really want to talk about this stuff with you guys; im learning here, and I dont know who swearing at me benefits.

Because you said something so fucking unbelievable and worthy of scorn. Maybe it was "misphrased," or you didn't say what you actually meant, but I had no way to see that through the fucking unbelievable words you actually said. If you want actual engagement from me, don't you fucking EVER imply that the physical safety of abused women is a secondary concern worth sacrificing. Lets find ways to help other people who need it without compromising other very real needs, shall we?

Also, I understand the importance of the physical safety of women, but your statement about telling me never to imply that it could be secondary or worth sacrificing is frustratingly dogmatic, and likely proof you dont have the ideology best suited to actually solving the problems you ostensibly seek to solve.

Here are some examples of situations where a woman's physical safety might be secondary, or worth sacrificing:

-Situations where "physical safety" is interpreted too broadly. For example, if a rape survivor thinks she would feel safer if she were granted the right to physically enter a prison and kill her rapist, I would oppose that.
-Situations where the physical safety of women is prioritized over other people (NOT foetuses) due to institutionalized sexism. "Women and children first" situations.
-situations where there is insufficient proof of a threat to physical safety to justify the action taken. I dont want people do be physically harmed because of a miscommunication; I think its important to know how safe you are, and not to simply assume one is never safe. That may ironically be a side effect of fox-news style fear mongering.

Anyway, those are some examples. I dont dogmatically believe in them, but hopefully they broaden your perspective a bit._________________Don`t give up.

If you meant a word of what you said, you'd be spending less time making wild assumptions about my character and more worrying about your own. You have, yourself, disavowed the words that I took exception to, and said that you understand that sometimes outrage is justified.

So understand it already, stop trying to condemn me for my justified outrage at something stupid you said, and [strike]don't say any more stupid things.[/strike]

Edit: too late, I see.

Last edited by Rune on Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

If you meant a word of what you said, you'd be spending less time making wild assumptions about my character and worrying about your own. You have, yourself, disavowed the words that I took exception to, and said that you understand that sometimes outrage is justified.

So understand it already, stop trying to condemn me for my justified outrage at something stupid you said, and don't say any more stupid things.

, okay. It sounds like we disagree on the kind of anger involved. Perhaps we just have different thresholds. I tend to kind of panic when people swear at me. Ill work on it._________________Don`t give up.

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

Can I ask what your criteria is to determine whether to engage with what I said or to just swear at me? Was the issue me not making my point with a respectful enough tone, or is what I said, regardless of how it is presented, so obviously wrong that any and all name calling and written abuse are justified?

I am not committed to disallowing women's only spaces. I think the value they bring in terms of both providing actual safety for women and providing a place that *feels* safe is huge. I dont think mentioning possible downsides and suggesting we should discuss the downsides while acknowledging that we need to ensure women both are and feel safe is the kind of perspective that warrants a playground bully level response. If its my fault for not making my postition clear, fine, im sorry. But I really want to talk about this stuff with you guys; im learning here, and I dont know who swearing at me benefits.

Because you said something so fucking unbelievable and worthy of scorn. Maybe it was "misphrased," or you didn't say what you actually meant, but I had no way to see that through the fucking unbelievable words you actually said. If you want actual engagement from me, don't you fucking EVER imply that the physical safety of abused women is a secondary concern worth sacrificing. Lets find ways to help other people who need it without compromising other very real needs, shall we?

Also, I understand the importance of the physical safety of women, but your statement about telling me never to imply that it could be secondary or worth sacrificing is frustratingly dogmatic, and likely proof you dont have the ideology best suited to actually solving the problems you ostensibly seek to solve.

Here are some examples of situations where a woman's physical safety might be secondary, or worth sacrificing:

-Situations where "physical safety" is interpreted too broadly. For example, if a rape survivor thinks she would feel safer if she were granted the right to physically enter a prison and kill her rapist, I would oppose that.
-Situations where the physical safety of women is prioritized over other people (NOT foetuses) due to institutionalized sexism. "Women and children first" situations.
-situations where there is insufficient proof of a threat to physical safety to justify the action taken. I dont want people do be physically harmed because of a miscommunication; I think its important to know how safe you are, and not to simply assume one is never safe. That may ironically be a side effect of fox-news style fear mongering.

Anyway, those are some examples. I dont dogmatically believe in them, but hopefully they broaden your perspective a bit.

Read my actual words, genius, before you decide to launch off into some faux-socratic, self-righteous, "I'm just trying to give you a different perspective" lecture. You kind of have to know what someone's current perspective is before you can challenge it, and you've proved you have no clue, and therefore no right to even BEGIN with that crap. You said you want to learn? Listen, don't lecture.

You can start by demonstrating that you have actually re-read my statements with some kind of comprehension, rather than vaguely absorbing some of the terms used and launching off into some tangential soft screed intended to make you look good to the less thoughtful.

Safe spaces for women hurt man feels. I don't care if it makes it materially more difficult to actually keep traumatized and battered women safe while they're at their absolute most hurt and vulnerable, I'd rather you just don't hurt the man feels.

I may have paraphrased just a teensy bit. But Monkey had the right approach to response here. Fuck you.

Can I ask what your criteria is to determine whether to engage with what I said or to just swear at me? Was the issue me not making my point with a respectful enough tone, or is what I said, regardless of how it is presented, so obviously wrong that any and all name calling and written abuse are justified?

I am not committed to disallowing women's only spaces. I think the value they bring in terms of both providing actual safety for women and providing a place that *feels* safe is huge. I dont think mentioning possible downsides and suggesting we should discuss the downsides while acknowledging that we need to ensure women both are and feel safe is the kind of perspective that warrants a playground bully level response. If its my fault for not making my postition clear, fine, im sorry. But I really want to talk about this stuff with you guys; im learning here, and I dont know who swearing at me benefits.

Because you said something so fucking unbelievable and worthy of scorn. Maybe it was "misphrased," or you didn't say what you actually meant, but I had no way to see that through the fucking unbelievable words you actually said. If you want actual engagement from me, don't you fucking EVER imply that the physical safety of abused women is a secondary concern worth sacrificing. Lets find ways to help other people who need it without compromising other very real needs, shall we?

Also, I understand the importance of the physical safety of women, but your statement about telling me never to imply that it could be secondary or worth sacrificing is frustratingly dogmatic, and likely proof you dont have the ideology best suited to actually solving the problems you ostensibly seek to solve.

Here are some examples of situations where a woman's physical safety might be secondary, or worth sacrificing:

-Situations where "physical safety" is interpreted too broadly. For example, if a rape survivor thinks she would feel safer if she were granted the right to physically enter a prison and kill her rapist, I would oppose that.
-Situations where the physical safety of women is prioritized over other people (NOT foetuses) due to institutionalized sexism. "Women and children first" situations.
-situations where there is insufficient proof of a threat to physical safety to justify the action taken. I dont want people do be physically harmed because of a miscommunication; I think its important to know how safe you are, and not to simply assume one is never safe. That may ironically be a side effect of fox-news style fear mongering.

Anyway, those are some examples. I dont dogmatically believe in them, but hopefully they broaden your perspective a bit.

Read my actual words, genius, before you decide to launch off into some faux-socratic, self-righteous, "I'm just trying to give you a different perspective" lecture. You kind of have to know what someone's current perspective is before you can challenge it, and you've proved you have no clue, and therefore no right to even BEGIN with that crap. You said you want to learn? Listen, don't lecture.

You can start by demonstrating that you have actually re-read my statements with some kind of comprehension, rather than vaguely absorbing some of the terms used and launching off into some tangential soft screed intended to make you look good to the less thoughtful.

You said that if I ever want engagement from you, dont I ever fucking dare imply an abused woman's physical safety is a secondary concern worth sacrificing. I responded, taking issue with dogmatic thinking. Does that demonstrate I read what you said? I am interested in your response to my point once you are done dodging it with ad homenims. Can you please just address my point? Being told my point is invalid because I misintetpret you is not a complete response is it? Isnt a literal interpretation of what you wrote; which I again quoted verbatim here, dogmatic?_________________Don`t give up.

Did you think that maybe the "abused" part was important there? Maybe especially in the context of your own statement that was specifically about women's shelters?

No, that concern should NOT be secondary to be sacrificed. If there are other needs, then those needs need to be met ALONGSIDE, not INSTEAD OF. And this is still in relation to your very first statement that was prioritizing eliminating some vague and unspecified collateral damage to men by compromising safe spaces for women. The statements you are reacting to are -still in that context.- If you want to disavow that context, then stop going back to responses to it in order to play gotcha.

I'd like to know under what circumstances an abused woman's physical safety is secondary to anything. I ask because, generally speaking, making people safe is always the first step. Call an abuse hotline, the first thing they ask is if you are somewhere safe. Walk into an ER, the first thing they do is make sure your vital signs are stable. Call an ambulance to an accident, the first thing they do is make sure everyone is safe, triaged, and they work from most dangerous to least dangerous injury. School shooting, the first thing the police do is make sure as many people as possible are safe (locking down the area, attempting to evacuate people, etc).

So, under what circumstance am I, as an observer, supposed to willingly deny an abused woman safety?_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman